Editor’s note: 911 Free Fall Radio show host Andrew Steele spoke truth to power when he asked Senator John McCain about the freefall of WTC7 on C-SPAN last month.

AE911Truth Action Groups Leader Pam Senzee recently approached McCain and spoke with him about the evidence of nanothermite in the WTC dust.

We encourage all of our supporters to follow their lead and reach out to local and federal representatives with this important information. If you also have video of peaceful but provocative encounters such as these, post them online and let us know! On April 9, 2013, Senator John McCain appeared on C-SPAN’s live call-in show Washington Journal. I asked him the following question:

“The National Institute of Standards and Technology asserts that the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was caused by fire. Yet they acknowledge that the first 100 feet of that collapse took place at free-fall acceleration. Engineers will tell you that fire cannot do this, that the only method by which it can be accomplished is the use of pre-planted explosives. How do you explain this discrepancy...of a hundred feet of free fall, without the use of explosives?” As the video shows, John McCain claimed ignorance, saying, “To tell you the truth, this is an area that I’m not very familiar...and if you would drop me a note and mention that we talked on C-SPAN, I’d be glad to get you a more complete answer. But... honestly, every once in a while I have to plead ignorance about an issue, and this is one that I have not been involved in, but I’ll be more than happy to look into it...” John McCain, of course, is not ignorant of 9/11 Truth. He wrote the foreword for the Popular Mechanics (PM) book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” In his essay “9/11 Conspiracy Myths: Truth Under Attack,” which was adapted from his foreword for PM’s book, McCain wrote: “Any explanation for 9/11 must start and end with the facts. The evidence must be gathered and analyzed. Then—only then—can conclusions be drawn.” Indeed, 100 feet of free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 is a fact, as acknowledged by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was the government agency tasked with investigating the destruction of the building. NIST was forced to admit to WTC 7’s free fall after physics teacher David Chandler embarrassed the agency into telling the truth at a technical briefing in August of 2008.

As well,NIST has refused requests to disclose the input data used to create the computer models for its WTC7 investigation, claiming that doing so would “jeopardize public safety.” It’s likely that John McCain’s plea of ignorance on Washington Journal was in reference to the technical information cited in the question that I asked him, and not to 9/11 Truth in general. In regard to the controversial issue of WTC 7’s destruction, he should be quite familiar with the topic. In 2008, Blair Gadsby — a religious history professor and constituent of McCain — held a hunger strike for 17 days at McCain’s Phoenix office after failing to obtain a personal meeting with the Senator to discuss his concerns about the 9/11 crime. Richard Gage, AIA — CEO and

founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth — offered his immediate availability to Senator McCain to discuss the evidence.

Despite numerous attempts by AE911Truth supporters to inform Senator McCain about the explosive 9/11 evidence, he has refused to lift a finger in support of a new investigation

Although a member of McCain’s staff finally met with Gadsby and other 9/11 activists after nine days into Gadsby’s hunger strike, and the staff member was given materials that laid out the evidence of the Twin Towers and Building 7’s controlled demolition on 9/11, Senator McCain himself refused to meet with the activists personally, stating in a letter to Gadsby: “I believe these investigations have been conducted in good faith by qualified experts who have approached this daunting task honestly and objectively. My staff and I are always open to new, scientifically substantiated information that helps explain how and why the tragedies of September 11th occurred. I welcome any additional new information you may wish to present on the subject and will make my staff available to listen to your concerns.” Because NIST’s acknowledgement of WTC 7’s freefall took place after McCain wrote those words to Gadsby, it qualifies as the “new, scientifically substantiated information” McCain was seeking. McCain promised on Washington Journal that he would try to answer the question that I asked him. Based on his promise and the existence of the new evidence, John McCain’s office should, therefore, be open to a new meeting with supporters of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a personal re-examination of the evidence. Please join the effort and contact Senator McCain. Encourage him to fulfill his promise and have his staff directly address the questions about the destruction of WTC 7. Senator John McCain Contact InformationPhoenix Office: -2201 East Camelback Road -Suite 115 -Phoenix, AZ 85016 -Main: (602) 952-2410 -Fax: (602) 952-8702Prescott Office: -122 North Cortez Street -Suite 108 -Prescott, AZ 86301 -Main: (928) 445-0833 -Fax: (928) 445-8594Tucson Office: -407 West Congress Street -Suite 103 -Tucson, AZ 85701 -Main: (520) 670-6334 -Fax: (520) 670-6637Washington Office: -241 Russell Senate Office Building -Washington, DC 20510 -Main: (202) 224-2235 -Fax: (202) 228-2862

Chris SarnsEditor’s note: To this day most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed along with the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report on this building’s collapse by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. The NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review – the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories. Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book titled "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7." The studies below represent years of work by Chris in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that the NIST’s theory of the fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading. The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings. More than 1,900 architects and engineers at AE911Truth are demanding a new investigation. Chris has also been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7. During the next five months, we will be presenting five articles written by Chris Sarns that address the alleged fire-induced collapse of World Trade Center 7 at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001. Quotes from the NIST WTC 7 reports are shown in "brown" 1. BURNED-OUT FIRE The timing of the fire on floor 12 exposes NIST's false claim that fire led to the collapse. The images shown below on the left are Sarns' approximations using the photographs as a guide of where and at what times the fire existed on floor 12. On the right is the NIST ANSYS computer model for the same times. "Note that only window glass breaking times were prescribed in the fire model. The observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and video were not a model input" NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 378 [pdf p. 40] NIST will not release the input data because doing so might "jeopardize public safety"

Quotes and photographs from the NIST reports on the collapse of WTC 7
Fire spread:
"On those floors that were mostly
subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have
grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes.
After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from
the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon
the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually
the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire
spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor,
although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to
travel further and would be cooling along the way." NCSTAR 1A p. 19
[pdf p. 61]
"The mass of the furnishings per office was not known" NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 60 [pdf p.104]
"the average combustible fuel load on the 11th and 12th floors was estimated as 32 kg/m2" NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p. 376 [pdf p.38]
All things being equal, the fire would have
spread consistently. But the NIST ANSYS computer model (above)
inexplicably bypassed the offices to the southwest of column 79, burns
around column 79 on the east side and then burned the offices to the
southwest of column 79 two hours later.
"Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min." NCSTAR 1A p. 47 [pdf p. 89]
Photos showing progression of fire:
"From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Looking from southeast corner to the south face.
Fire on floor 12;[1] area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12[1] moved to east face and progressed to the north
[1] fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12." Part IIC p. 21

Figure 5-114. Oblique view of the east face of WTC 7, taken at 2:08:28 p.m. +/- 1s"Fire was first seen on the 12th floor at 2:08 p.m. toward the south end of the east face. Further south on this face, the window glass was still intact, indicating that this fire had burned in the building interior as it turned the southeast corner." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p. 245 [pdf p. 289]

Figure 5-117. Photograph showing fires on the east face at 2:28:43 p.m. +/- 1s [34, 37 and 40 are column numbers]"By around 2:30 p.m., the visible flames had diminished, but the fire had spread both south into the southeast corner and north, reaching two-thirds of the way to the northeast corner." NCSTAR 1A, p. 20 [pdf p. 62] Fire first appears on the north face of floor 12 about 80 feet from the north-east corner: "By 3:00 p.m., the fire had spread internally past the northeast corner and onto the north face." NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p.62]The fire spread internally through the offices around column 79 and under the beams which allegedly underwent enough thermal expansion to push a girder off its seat and initiate the "global collapse" at 5:20 p.m.

Figure 5-119. Photograph showing the north face of WTC 7 taken from a helicopter around 2:57 p.m. +/- 5 min

Figure 5-135. Cropped photograph showing the east edge of the north face and an oblique view of the east face. It was likely taken between 3:20 p.m. and 3:40 p.m.

Figure 5-121. Cropped photograph of the north face of WTC 7, taken from a helicopter around 3:05 p.m. +/- 5 min

Figure 5-136. Frame taken from a video shot from near the corner of Greenwich Street and Park Place showing the north face of WTC 7 between 3:49 p.m. and 3:54 p.m.

“In less than 15 min, the fire simultaneously spread rapidly to the east to engulf the northeast corner of the floor and more slowly westward about one-third of the way across the north face.” NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p. 62]"The fire continued spreading westward in starts and stops, approaching the northwest corner of the floor around 3:45 p.m." NCSTAR 1A p. 20 [pdf p. 62]The photographs reveal that the fire on floor 12 had progressed from the south side of the building to the north side by 3:00 p.m. – and had engulfed the northeast corner by about 3:15 p.m. This means that the fire in the area in question (around column 79 and under the beams and girder in the northeast corner) had burned out at about 3:50, because as noted above, the fires burned for only about 20 to 30 minutes in any given location.

Many of those who cannot accept the scientific evidence that refutes the official story of the collapse of the three WTC towers on 9/11/2001 argue, “If 9/11 was an inside operation, surely at least one whistleblower would have come forward by now. You couldn’t keep something like that secret.” While at first blush this argument might seem to be logical, closer examination shows that it makes no sense. Since scientific evidence has clearly shown that the official explanation for the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers cannot be true, the theory that the official story must be true because there have been “no 9/11 whistleblowers” is entirely specious.

In his groundbreaking 2006 research paper entitled “Where Are The 9/11 Whistleblowers?”, 9/11 researcher Gregg Roberts addresses the subject in painstaking detail. At one key point, Roberts notes that “physics trumps armchair psychology.” That is, the evidence is what determines whether 9/11 involved more than what officials are telling us, not an assumed theory about the power of the whistleblower.However, for the sake of those who adhere to the baseless 9/11 whistleblower theory, let’s examine the alleged power of the 9/11 whistleblower by first defining “whistleblower,”… and then adapting that definition to the 9/11 context.Merriam-Webster online defines “whistleblower” as “one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.” An example would be the 40 whistle-blowing technical experts who present evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center in AE911Truth’s powerful documentary, 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. In addition, we could include the eyewitnesses, government officials, and litigants listed in James Corbett’s report, “A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers,” and the Infowars report, “The 9/11 Whistleblowers.” Another definition of "whistleblower," provided by FindLaw, is “an employee who brings wrongdoing by an employer or other employees to the attention of a government or law enforcement agency and who is commonly vested by statute with rights and remedies for retaliation.

The broad definition of the term “whistleblower” would include technical professionals like Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, who was part of the team of scientists who identified thermitic material throughout the WTC dust

_A prime example of a person meeting this definition would be Kevin Ryan,
the chemistry laboratory manager for the environmental testing division
of Underwriters’ Laboratories (UL), who began to investigate 9/11 and
publicly ask questions about UL’s testing of the structural assemblies
used to construct the World Trade Center towers as well as UL’s
involvement in the WTC investigation being conducted by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). UL fired Ryan in
2004. Former JP Morgan IT consultant Indira Singh also suffered persecution when she investigated the money trail behind 9/11 and brought her concerns to her superiors.
Neither of the above definitions fits the context of the claim that
since there have been no 9/11 whistleblowers to date, the official story
of 9/11 must be true. However, here is an online definition of
“whistleblower” from TheFreeDictionary
that is readily adaptable: “One who reveals wrongdoing within an
organization to the public or to those in positions of authority.”
[Emphasis added.] Regarding the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers, we
can narrow this definition to “a potential 9/11 whistleblower would be
someone who was (wittingly or unwittingly) part of the organized effort
to destroy the Twin Towers and Building 7 via controlled demolition, and
who is willing to reveal what he or she knows about that event to the
public or the authorities” — in short, a classic “insider.” This is the
type of whistleblower to whom proponents of the theory are referring.
Note that this definition implies that a potential 9/11 whistleblower
has the power to actually inform the public, for example through the
mainstream mass media. But who would have the stature to command the
mainstream media (which had already censored AE911Truth and others who
attempted to publicize the WTC evidence) and somehow prompt them to
accurately publish the inside story on what actually happened? Most
likely, it would be only senior members of the 9/11 operation’s chain of
command – the very people who would have been actively engaged in
planning, execution, and/or cover-up at the highest level.

Former UL chemistry lab manager Kevin Ryan was fired after challenging his employer's role in NIST's WTC investigation

How likely would it be for any one of them to have a change of heart and openly confess to participating in the mass murder of 3,000 people and creating a treasonous pretense to draw America and other nations into two major wars? For someone below the upper echelon to come forward, the problem would be, “To whom do I turn?” Since, as mentioned, the mainstream media were nothing short of complicit in propagating the official myth about what happened on 9/11, an underling blowing the whistle on his or her fellow 9/11 co-conspirators via the media would hardly be likely. For a moment, put yourself in the position of a potential 9/11 insider. Let’s say you have your own Facebook or Blogspot page, or an account at YouTube, and you want to tell the world how and when the explosives were rigged in Building 7. Who would protect you and your family from retaliation if you went public? Let’s not lose sight of the fact that, if there was——as the evidence clearly shows——a concerted effort to rig the New York City towers for controlled demolition, what we are talking about here is pre-meditated mass murder. Would the murderers who committed that atrocity leave you in peace after you came forward to blow the whistle on them? Highly unlikely. What would inspire you to come forward, at a minimum, would be assurance that you and your family would not be harmed. Would the murderers who committed that atrocity leave you in peace after you came forward to blow the whistle on them? Highly unlikely. Nevertheless, let us say that you are that potential 9/11 whistleblower who feels that you must step up. Why? Perhaps you helped install electronics needed to detonate the explosives at Building 7, while being told that all you were doing was installing a high-tech alarm system or some other harmless device. Having learned what you were really part of has made you determined to bring your 9/11 insider knowledge to light. You know that the media would be of no assistance and wonder, "Where else might I turn?” At this point (or maybe at the outset), you would consider contacting someone in a position of authority, someone who could protect you from retaliation.

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds is one of several government employees who was severely persecuted after blowing the whistle on 9/11

If Bradley Manning is facing decades in prison for exposing alleged war crimes, what would a 9/11 insider face for exposing the crime of the century?

So, in summary, there is nobody in a position of authority to whom you, as a 9/11 insider, could turn and simultaneously insure the safety of your family and yourself. How about Wikileaks, the not-for-profit media organization, whose alleged goal is to bring important news and information to the public? Whatever you believe regarding Wikileaks’ real motivations, you could not find a more unreceptive audience than founder Julian Assange, who is “constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11.” Dealing with Assange could be dangerous as well. Let’s assume you could get Wikileaks to accept that your insider testimony conclusively proves how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down via controlled demolition and who was involved. What kind of treatment might you expect? A hero’s welcome, perhaps? Well, let’s consider the case of Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning, a 24-year-old Army intelligence analyst, who has acknowledged releasing classified military data, including the so-called “Collateral Murder” video that shows the killing of unarmed civilians and two Reuters journalists by a US Apache helicopter crew in Iraq. He is also accused of sharing the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, and a series of embarrassing US diplomatic cables.

These documents were published by WikiLeaks. Prosecutors seek to lock Manning away for life for “aiding the enemy,” even though chat logs attributed to Manning by the FBI clearly show his intent was only to inform the public and promote “discussion, debates, and reforms.” As a 9/11 whistleblower, would you be encouraged to bring your story to Wikileaks, given Assange’s position on 9/11 and the experiences of Bradley Manning? So, why have no 9/11 insiders blown the whistle? In short, no effective way to reach the public, no one in a position of authority to turn to, and no assurance of adequate protection from retaliation.